The promise of an investigation into Donald Trump’s Durham was short lived

[ad_1]

The investigation into the origins of the FBI investigation into ties between Russia and Donald Trumps 2016 presidential campaign has finally ended, with the prosecutor who led the probe submitting a long-awaited report that found major flaws.

The report, the culmination of a four-year investigation into possible misconduct by US government officials, contains scathing criticism for the FBI but few substantive revelations. Still, it will provide fodder to Trump supporters who have long decried the Russia investigation, as well as Trump opponents who say the Durham teams’ meager court records show their investigation is a farce with related to politics.

A look at the investigation and report:

WHO WAS JOHN DURHAM?

Durham spent decades as a Justice Department prosecutor, with previous assignments including investigations into the FBI’s cozy ties to the Boston mob and the CIA’s destruction of videotapes of its brutal interrogations of terrorism subjects. .

He was appointed in 2019 to investigate potential misconduct by US government officials as they probed Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether there was any illegal coordination between the Kremlin and Trumps presidential campaign.

Despite the meager results of a guilty plea and two acquittals that failed to live up to Trump’s expectations, Durham has continued to work well in the Biden administration, thanks in part to William Barr’s appointment of Durham as a special counsel. of the Justice Department shortly before Barrs 2020 resignation as attorney general.

WHY DID THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THINK SUCH AN APPOINTMENT WAS NECESSARY?

The appointment comes weeks after another special counsel, Robert Mueller, concluded his investigation into possible connections between Russia and the Trump campaign. That investigation produced more than two dozen criminal charges, including against half a dozen Trump associates.

While it did not charge any Trump aides with working with Russia to tip the election, it found that Russia had interfered on the Trumps behalf and that the campaign welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help.

From the start, Barr was highly skeptical of the investigation’s foundation, telling Congress that campaign spying had occurred.

He enlisted an outside prosecutor to hunt down potential misconduct at government agencies involved in gathering intelligence and conducting the investigation, even flying with Durham to Italy to meet with officials there as part of the investigation. .

IS THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION A PROBLEM?

Yes, and the inspector general of the Justice Department has identified a lot.

The watchdog report found that the FBI’s applications for warrants to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page, contained significant errors and omitted information that likely undermined or undermined the application’s premise. .

The cumulative effect of those errors, the report said, was to show that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than the actual case.

However, the inspector general found no evidence that investigators acted with political bias and said there was a legitimate basis to open a full investigation into potential collusion, though Durham disagreed.

WHAT CRIMINAL CASES HAS HE BROUGHT AND WHAT IS THE FUTURE?

Durham brought three prosecutions during his tenure, but only one resulted in a conviction and that was for a case referred to him by the Justice Department inspector general. None of Mueller’s three main findings are indisputable that Russia meddled in the 2016 election in a highly effective manner and that the Trump campaign welcomed, rather than discouraged, the help.

A former FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty in 2020 to altering an email linked to surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide. He was given probation.

But two other cases, both involving alleged false statements to the FBI, resulted in jury acquittals.

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for the Hillary Clinton campaign, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI during a meeting in which he revealed computer data information he wanted the FBI to investigate. Another jury acquitted Igor Danchenko, a Russian-American analyst, on charges that he lied to the FBI about his role in creating a discredited dossier on Trump.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID DURHAM FIND?

Durham found that the FBI rushed too much and relied on raw and unconfirmed intelligence when it opened the Trump-Russia investigation.

He said at the time the investigation was opened, the FBI had no information about any actual contact between Trump associates and Russian intelligence officials.

He also claimed that FBI investigators fell victim to confirmation bias, repeatedly ignoring or discounting information that could undermine the basis of their investigation, and he noted that the FBI failed to substantiate a single important allegation from a research dossier relied on during the probe.

An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to doubt not only the predication for the Crossfire Hurricane, but also to consider whether the FBI is being manipulated for political or other other purposes, the report said, using the FBIs code name for the Trump-Russia probe. Unfortunately, no.

HOW DOES THE FBI RESPOND?

The FBI pointed out that it had already made dozens of corrections. If those steps had been taken in 2016, it said, the errors at the heart of the report could have been prevented.

It’s also hard to remember that the behavior in the report occurred before the current director, Christopher Wray, took the job in fall 2017.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

It didn’t take long for Republicans in Congress to react. Rep. said. Jim Jordan, who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, said he has invited Durham to testify on Capitol Hill next week. Trump also sought to cover up the report, saying it showed how the American public had been scammed.

Although the FBI says it has taken some steps, Durham said that possibly more reform may be needed. One idea, he said, is to provide additional scrutiny to politically sensitive investigations by designating an official responsible for challenging the steps taken in an investigation.

He said his team considered but did not ultimately recommend measures that would prevent the FBI’s investigative authorities, including its use of tools under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to eavesdrop on suspects. spy or terrorist.

[ad_2]